JAGTA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 23-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
A 
JAGTA 
~. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
April 23, 1974 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Bf 
Circ11111stantial evidence-Crhninal case-Vafue of. 
The [lCcused was convicted for the· offences of murder a°'d ~ttemPt tO commit 
rape. 
The evidence againSt him was purely circumstantial consisting of, (a) 
recovery of some petty ornaments belonging to the victini. 
(b) an extra-
judicial confession made by him to one of the prosecution witnesses .. (c). his 
presence near the place of occurrence on the day of occ.urrencc, and ,(d) injuries 
on the person of the a·ccused. 
C 
Allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HELD : This Court does not normally, in an appeal under Art. 136- re"". 
appraise the evidence, but there are glaring infirmities in the prosecution 
evidence in the case. 
Circumstantial evidence in order to \Varra·nt convictio1;1. 
:..hould be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and 
when there is reasonable doubt the -accused is entitled to its benefit. 
[172 C; 
l 71F] 
(a) No reliance could be placed upon the evidence that the deceased was 
wearing the ornaments on the day of the occurren::e and that those ornaments 
were ren1oved from the pcrsnn of tht decca·;~d by the accused beLause, (i) N'o 
n1ention of the ornaments not being found upon the body of the deceased was 
mentioned in the F.1.R. by her father and other witnesses who discovered her 
body. 
(ii) No mention was made in the inquest report prepared in broad daylight 
even though there is a specific column in the report relating to ornaments and 
clothes of the deceased, (iii) The nature of the crime shows that the crime i-.; 
one of sex and not one for pecuniary gain; and (iv) It is extremely unlikely 
that the accused, who was a landowner, would carry ~way such petty ornament-> 
to his house and keep them in his shirt pocket, and thus provide evidence of his 
complicity in the crime. 
l169G-H; 170A-D] 
(b) There is absolutely no. reason why the accused, instead of surrendering: 
himself to the police, should go to the house of a prosecution witness. blurt out 
a confession before him, and ask him to take him to the police. 
Since the 
evidence as to whether the accused at all made a confession is unreliable and 
lacking in probability, the question as to wh:at value would have been attached 
to the confession if the evidence had been found to he reliable and trustworthy, 
need not be considered. 
The· attempt bv the Investigating agency to introduce 
a false story rega-rding the removal of the ornaments and their recovery from 
the accused also affects the credibility of the evidence regarding the extra-judicial 
confession. Also, though the dead body was discovered according to prosecution 
at 11.30 p.m. even b:!fore, by 8.00 p.m., the father of the victim anrl the 
sarpanch were declaring that it was the accused who had committed the murder. 
It shows that body must have been recovered even by 8.00 p.m. 
[170E-G] 
( c) The fact that the accused was in his field at 1.00 p.m. and was walking 
away at a fast pace at sun set time would not necessarily point to the guilt of 
the accused especially when there is no evidence. 
(i) that no oiJier persons v1ere 
present in the field, and (ii) regarding the time at which the offence \Vas com-
mitted. [171DJ 
(d) Assuming that the explanation of the accused that t4e injuries on his 
person were caused by the police is not •trustworthy. that circumstance though 
suspicious, would not be sufficient -to warrant his conviction of a serious offence 
entailing death· penalty; [171&FJ 
· 
· 
· (o) -The 'mere fact that the accused cut an indecent joke with sisttr-in·la\V 
of the victim 20 days before the occurrence could hardly be a valid basis fat 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] l S.C.R. 
suspicion, or in any case for a positive assertion. iliat it was the accused who 
A 
l1ad murdered the deceased. [171Hl 
. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 149 
of 1973. 
Appeal by special lel)ve from the judgment & Order dated the 
5th January, 1973 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 931 of 1972 and Murder Ref. No. 46 of 1972. 
B 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwal, S. S. Bhatnagar and V. !. Francis, 
for the oappellant. 
· 
H. S. Marwah and Girish Chandra, for the respondent. 
B. D. Sharma, for the complainant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave by Jagta alias Jagdish 
(34) ·is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.